Noah's Ark and the Cheetah

[Subduction Zone]

Or 14. It really doesn't matter - 14 is still a ridiculously tight bottleneck.

And justlookinla forgot his own Bible it seems. The cheetah is not a "clean animal" and only two would have been taken aboard.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, to both.

Then I'll take your remark as an attempt at provocation.

 

[AV1611VET]

And justlookinla forgot his own Bible it seems. The cheetah is not a "clean animal" and only two would have been taken aboard.

I think, as with the flora, that God could have left all the animals off the Ark if He had wanted to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I'll take your remark as an attempt at provocation.

How could that be? I don't have to have been here for six years to know how you argue. You seem to have forgotten how often you do a zombie act with old threads where you lost years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think, as with the flora, that God could have left all the animals off the Ark if He had wanted to.

Yes, once more "magic" is the answer. The question is why didn't he just "magic" the results that he wanted? It would have been much simpler.

The problem with a literal view of the Bible is that it always leads to blasphemy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't have to have been here for six years to know how you argue.

Oh ... now it's "argue"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh ... now it's "argue"?

At best. Much of what you do here would be termed goading.

If you want to debate that would be best. If you want to argue I might even put up with that. Nonsensical goading is not good for either of us.

 

[AV1611VET]

At best. Much of what you do here would be termed goading.

If you want to debate that would be best. If you want to argue I might even put up with that. Nonsensical goading is not good for either of us.

Anything else before we end this conversation that should never have gotten started?

 

[The Cadet]

How could that be? I don't have to have been here for six years to know how you argue. You seem to have forgotten how often you do a zombie act with old threads where you lost years ago.

Why are you arguing with this person? He already admitted that nothing can change his mind. Just put him on block and stop derailing the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything else before we end this conversation that should never have gotten started?

I am merely offering you a chance to debate. So far you have done anything but that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you arguing with this person? He already admitted that nothing can change his mind. Just put him on block and stop derailing the thread.

You are right, since this is your thread I will ignore AV on this one from now on. My apologies.

 

[driewerf]

Cheetahs. Fastest land animal, symbol of the African Savannah, product of extreme incest.

Let's back up a bit.

Cheetahs have extremely minuscule genetic diversity. You can perform skin grafts between two Cheetahs with virtually no fear of rejection. It's as if they were all very closely related - indeed, there's virtually no difference between an inbred cheetah and a cheetah with unrelated parents. Their genetic variability is almost non-existent. This is not a good thing - it leads to massive infant mortality rates, high morbidity rates from diseases, and many other serious problems.

This genetic diversity was caused by a population bottleneck some 10,000 years ago. The Cheetah species almost went extinct, but bounced back. However, this "bounce back" took a massive toll on the genetic diversity of the species, as the ended up horribly inbred with almost no diversity to speak of.

So here's the problem.

If almost every mammalian species on earth was culled down to 2 members a mere 4000 years ago, why does only the Cheetah (and the southern elephant seal, and a handful of others) show this sort of lack of diversity? Why does one population seem entirely inbred, while another shows the sort of genetic diversity which, according to everything we know about evolution and the conservation rates of certain parts of the genome, should be blatantly impossible from 2 individuals in 4000 years?

Relevant video:

Now, here comes a question for AV1611VET:
If god magicked -- miracled-- the genetic diversity in the rest of the animal world, can you explain me why he left the cheetahs out?
Simply forgotten? Tired? Does god hate cheetahs? Any other option?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And justlookinla forgot his own Bible it seems. The cheetah is not a "clean animal" and only two would have been taken aboard.

Just in case this got lost in the shuffle. You were right when you said that two Cheetahs was the number that would have been on the Ark. They are not a "clean" animal.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, here comes a question for AV1611VET:
If god magicked -- miracled-- the genetic diversity in the rest of the animal world, can you explain me why he left the cheetahs out?
Simply forgotten? Tired? Does god hate cheetahs? Any other option?

I would assume the answer is in the first line of the OP:

... product of extreme incest.

 

[driewerf]

I would assume the answer is in the first line of the OP:

And all the rest of the animal kingdom is not the product of incest or what?

 

[AV1611VET]

And all the rest of the animal kingdom is not the product of incest or what?

You left a word out: "extreme."

He said the cheetah was a product of extreme incest.

 

[driewerf]

You left a word out: "extreme."

He said the cheetah was a product of extreme incest.

No lesser extreme than all the other unclean animals. My question remains valid, and unanswered:
If god magicked -- miracled-- the genetic diversity in the rest of the animal world, can you explain me why he left the cheetahs out?
Simply forgotten? Tired? Does god hate cheetahs? Any other option?

 

[AV1611VET]

No lesser extreme than all the other unclean animals.

So you disagree with the OP, and you want me to sort it out?

 

[justlookinla]

Please look at only the mammals in your list. Which is rather incomplete to say the least. The unclean mammals listed for exceeds the clean mammals listed. The Cadet was talking specifically about mammals.

I was challenging your "small subset" claim. Successfully, I might add.

 

[justlookinla]

Or 14. It really doesn't matter - 14 is still a ridiculously tight bottleneck.

You should be more careful in your claims as related to the bible is the point.